The effect of vitamin D supplementation on survival in patients with colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Low circulating vitamin D levels are associated with poor colorectal cancer (CRC) survival. We assess whether vitamin D supplementation improves CRC survival outcomes.Methods
PubMed and Web of Science were searched. Randomised controlled trial (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation reporting CRC mortality were included. RCTs with high risk of bias were excluded from analysis. Random-effects meta-analysis models calculated estimates of survival benefit with supplementation. The review is registered on PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42020173397.Results
Seven RCTs (n = 957 CRC cases) were identified: three trials included patients with CRC at outset, and four population trials reported survival in incident cases. Two RCTs were excluded from meta-analysis (high risk of bias; no hazard ratio (HR)). While trials varied in inclusion criteria, intervention dose and outcomes, meta-analysis found a 30% reduction in adverse CRC outcomes with supplementation (n = 815, HR = 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48-0.93). A beneficial effect was seen in trials of CRC patients (progression-free survival, HR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.36-0.94), with suggestive effect in incident CRC cases from population trials (CRC-specific survival, HR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.39-1.13). No heterogeneity or publication bias was noted.Conclusions
Meta-analysis demonstrates a clinically meaningful benefit of vitamin D supplementation on CRC survival outcomes. Further well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are needed to fully evaluate benefit of supplementation in augmenting 'real-life' follow-up and adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, as well as determining optimal dosing.
SUBMITTER: Vaughan-Shaw PG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7686489 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Observational studies have revealed that higher serum vitamin E concentrations and increased vitamin E intake and vitamin E supplementation are associated with beneficial effects on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, whether vitamin E supplementation exerts a definitive effect on glycaemic control remains unclear. This article involves a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of vitamin E to better characterise its impact on HbA1c, fasting glucose and fasting insulin. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were electronically searched from the earliest possible date through April 2013 for all relevant studies. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated for net changes using fixed-effects or random-effects models. Standard methods for assessing statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were used. Fourteen randomised controlled trials involving individual data on 714 subjects were collected in this meta-analysis. Increased vitamin E supplementation did not result in significant benefits in glycaemic control as measured by reductions in HbA1c, fasting glucose and fasting insulin. Subgroup analyses revealed a significant reduction in HbA1c (-0.58%, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.34) and fasting insulin (-9.0 pmol/l, 95% CI -15.90 to -2.10) compared with controls in patients with low baseline vitamin E status. Subgroup analyses also demonstrated that the outcomes may have been influenced by the vitamin E dosage, study duration, ethnic group, serum HbA1c concentration, and fasting glucose control status. In conclusion, there is currently insufficient evidence to support a potential beneficial effect of vitamin E supplementation on improvements of HbA1c and fasting glucose and insulin concentrations in subjects with T2DM.
| S-EPMC3989270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed. Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Double-blind RCTs of supplementation with vitamin D or calcidiol, of any duration, were eligible if they were approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633). We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials in which vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test). Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation. None.
| S-EPMC7709175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: B vitamins have been extensively used to reduce homocysteine levels; however, it remains uncertain whether B vitamins are associated with a reduced risk of stroke. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of B vitamins on stroke. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies for our analysis. Relative risk (RR) was used to measure the effect of B-vitamin supplementation on the risk of stroke. The analysis was further stratified based on factors that could affect the treatment effects. Of the 13,124 identified articles, we included 18 trials reporting data on 57,143 individuals and 2,555 stroke events. B-vitamin supplementation was not associated with a significant reduction in the risk of stroke (RR, 0.91, 95%CI: 0.82-1.01, P = 0.075; RD, -0.003, 95%CI: -0.007-0.001, P = 0.134). Subgroup analyses suggested that B-vitamin supplementation might reduce the risk of stroke if included trials had a man/woman ratio of more than 2 or subjects received dose of folic acid less than 1 mg. Furthermore, in a cumulative meta-analysis for stroke, the originally proposed nonsignificant B-vitamin effect was refuted by the evidence accumulated up to 2006. There is a small effect with borderline statistical significance based on data gathered since 2007. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our study indicates that B-vitamin supplementation is not associated with a lower risk of stroke based on relative and absolute measures of association. Subgroup analyses suggested that B-vitamin supplementation can effectively reduce the risk of stroke if included trials had a man/woman ratio of more than 2 or subjects received dose of folic acid less than 1 mg.
| S-EPMC3839876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntioxidant vitamin (vitamin E, beta-carotene, and vitamin C) are widely used for preventing major cardiovascular outcomes. However, the effect of antioxidant vitamin on cardiovascular events remains unclear.Methodology and principal findingsWe searched PubMed, EmBase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the proceedings of major conferences for relevant literature. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that reported on the effects of antioxidant vitamin on cardiovascular outcomes as compared to placebo. Outcomes analyzed were major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiac death, total death, and any possible adverse events. We used the I(2) statistic to measure heterogeneity between trials and calculated risk estimates for cardiovascular outcomes with random-effect meta-analysis. Independent extraction was performed by two reviewers and consensus was reached. Of 293 identified studies, we included 15 trials reporting data on 188209 participants. These studies reported 12749 major cardiovascular events, 6699 myocardial infarction, 3749 strokes, 14122 total death, and 5980 cardiac deaths. Overall, antioxidant vitamin supplementation as compared to placebo had no effect on major cardiovascular events (RR, 1.00; 95%CI, 0.96-1.03), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.98; 95%CI, 0.92-1.04), stroke (RR, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.93-1.05), total death (RR, 1.03; 95%CI, 0.98-1.07), cardiac death (RR, 1.02; 95%CI, 0.97-1.07), revascularization (RR, 1.00; 95%CI, 0.95-1.05), total CHD (RR, 0.96; 95%CI, 0.87-1.05), angina (RR, 0.98; 95%CI, 0.90-1.07), and congestive heart failure (RR, 1.07; 95%CI, 0.96 to 1.19).Conclusion/significanceAntioxidant vitamin supplementation has no effect on the incidence of major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, total death, and cardiac death.
| S-EPMC3577664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: Laboratory findings indicated that vitamin D might have a potent protective effect on breast cancer, but epidemiology studies reported conflicting results. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on risk of breast cancer. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and abstracts of three major conferences were searched (up to December 8, 2020). Parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on risk of breast cancer or change of mammography compared with placebo in females were included. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Bayesian meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the results using data from observational studies as priors. Results: Seven RCTs were identified for effect of vitamin D on risk of breast cancer, with 19,137 females included for meta-analysis. No statistically significant effect of vitamin D on risk of breast cancer was found in classical random-effects meta-analysis (risk ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.84-1.28, p = 0.71). When Bayesian meta-analyses were conducted, results remained non-significant. There was no statistically significant effect of vitamin D on mammography density observed: mean difference = 0.46, 95% confidence interval: -2.06 to 2.98, p = 0.72. Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in breast cancer risk and change of mammography density. The protective effect of vitamin D on risk of breast cancer from previous observational studies may be overestimated. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42019138718.
| S-EPMC8049142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine the efficacy of calcium supplementation in reducing the recurrence of colorectal adenomas.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. We searched PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website, through December 2015. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials assessing supplemental calcium intake for the prevention of recurrence of adenomas were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently selected studies based on predefined criteria, extracted data and outcomes (recurrence of colorectal adenomas, and advanced or "high-risk" adenomas), and rated each trial's risk-of-bias. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed, and pooled risk ratio (RR) estimates with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models. To express the treatment effect in clinical terms, we calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one adenoma recurrence. We also assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE.Four randomized, placebo-controlled trials met the eligibility criteria and were included. Daily doses of elemental calcium ranged from 1200 to 2000 mg, while the duration of treatment and follow-up of participants ranged from 36 to 60 mo. Synthesis of intention-to-treat data, for participants who had undergone follow-up colonoscopies, indicated a modest protective effect of calcium in prevention of adenomas (fixed-effects, RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.82-0.96; random-effects, RR = 0.87, 95%CI: 0.77-0.98; high quality of evidence). The NNT was 20 (95%CI: 12-61) to prevent one colorectal adenoma recurrence within a period of 3 to 5 years. On the other hand, the association between calcium treatment and advanced adenomas did not reach statistical significance (fixed-effects, RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.75-1.13; random-effects, RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.71-1.18; moderate quality of evidence).Our results suggest a modest chemopreventive effect of calcium supplements against recurrent colorectal adenomas over a period of 36 to 60 mo. Further research is warranted.
| S-EPMC4858641 | biostudies-other
Project description:The aim of this study was to review the effects of vitamin D supplementation on depressive symptoms in randomized controlled trials. Although low vitamin D levels have been observationally associated with depressive symptoms, the effect of vitamin D supplementation as an antidepressant remains uncertain.MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and references of included reports (through May 2013) were searched. Two independent reviewers identified and extracted data from randomized trials that compared the effect of vitamin D supplementation on depressive symptoms to a control condition. Two additional reviewers assessed study quality using The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Seven trials (3191 participants) were included.Vitamin D supplementation had no overall effect on depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.33 to 0.05, p = .16), although considerable heterogeneity was observed. Subgroup analysis showed that vitamin D supplementation for participants with clinically significant depressive symptoms or depressive disorder had a moderate, statistically significant effect (2 studies: SMD, -0.60; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.01; p = .046), but a small, nonsignificant effect for those without clinically significant depression (5 studies: SMD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.12; p = .61). Most trials had unclear or high risk of bias. Studies varied in the amount, frequency, duration, and mode of delivery of vitamin D supplementation.Vitamin D supplementation may be effective for reducing depressive symptoms in patients with clinically significant depression; however, further high-quality research is needed.
| S-EPMC4008710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVascular calcification (VC) is a complex process that has been linked to conditions including cardiovascular diseases and chronic kidney disease. There is an ongoing debate about whether vitamin K (VK) can effectively prevent VC. To assess the efficiency and safety of VK supplementation in the therapies of VC, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent studies.MethodsWe searched major databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase databases, and Web of Science up until August 2022. 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) describing the outcomes of treatment for VK supplementation with VC have been included out of 332 studies. The results were reported in the change of coronary artery calcification (CAC) scores, other artery and valve calcification, vascular stiffness, and dephospho-uncarboxylated matrix Gla protein (dp-ucMGP). The reports of severe adverse events were recorded and analyzed.ResultsWe reviewed 14 RCTs, comprising a total of 1,533 patients. Our analysis revealed that VK supplementation has a significant effect on CAC scores, slowing down the progression of CAC [I2 = 34%, MD= -17.37, 95% CI (-34.18, -0.56), p = 0.04]. The study found that VK supplementation had a significant impact on dp-ucMGP levels, as compared to the control group, where those receiving VK supplementation had lower values [I2 = 71%, MD = -243.31, 95% CI (-366.08, -120.53), p = 0.0001]. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the adverse events between the groups [I2 = 31%, RR = 0.92, 95% CI (-0.79,1.07), p = 0.29].ConclusionVK may have therapeutic potential for alleviating VC, especially CAC. However, more rigorously designed RCTs are required to verify the benefits and efficacy of VK therapy in VC.
| S-EPMC10218696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on cancer mortality in the general population and on prognosis in cancer patients, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and individual patient data (IPD) was conducted. Overall, 14 RCTs with a total of 104,727 participants (2015 cancer deaths) were identified and 7 RCTs, including 90 % of all study participants (n = 94,068), could be included in the IPD meta-analyses. The main meta-analysis of the 14 RCTs yielded a statistically non-significant reduction in cancer mortality by 6 % (risk ratio (RR) [95%-confidence interval (95%CI)]: 0.94 [0.86-1.02]). Subgroup analyses revealed a 12 % lower cancer mortality in the vitamin D3 group compared with the placebo group in 10 trials with a daily dosing regimen (RR [95%CI]: 0.88 [0.78-0.98]), whereas no mortality reduction was seen in 4 trials using a bolus regimen (RR [95%CI]: 1.07 [0.91-1.24]; p-value for interaction: 0.042). The IPD meta-analysis (RR [95%CI]: 0.93 [0.84; 1.02]) confirmed the finding of all trials. The IPD were used to test effect modification by age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration, adherence and cancer-related factors but no statistically significant findings were obtained in meta-analyses of all trials. When restricted to trials with daily dosing in a post-hoc analysis, adults aged ≥ 70 years (RR [95%CI]: 0.83 [0.77; 0.98]) and subjects with vitamin D3 therapy initiation before cancer diagnosis (RR [95%CI]: 0.87 [0.69; 0.99]) appeared to benefit most from daily vitamin D3 supplementation. Measurements of baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and inclusion of other than non-Hispanic White adults were too sparse in the trials to draw conclusions. Results for all-cause and cancer-specific survival of participants with cancer were comparable to those obtained in the general population for cancer mortality. In conclusion, vitamin D3 did not reduce cancer mortality in the main meta-analysis of all RCTs because the observed risk reduction by 6 % was not statistically significant. However, a subgroup analysis revealed that vitamin D3 administered daily, in contrast to bolus supplementation, reduced cancer mortality by 12 %.
| S-EPMC10214278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vitamin D reduces prostaglandin levels and inflammation, making it a promising treatment option for dysmenorrhoea. However, its effects on pain intensity in different types of dysmenorrhoea remain unclear. We examined whether vitamin D supplementation decreases pain intensity in patients with dysmenorrhoea. The Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, Medline, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to 30 December 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin D supplementation effects on such patients were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were measured by the changes in pain intensity and rescue analgesic use, respectively. Pooled mean differences and rate ratios were calculated using a random-effect model; trial sequential analysis (TSA) was also performed. Overall, 11 studies involving 687 participants were included. Vitamin D supplementation significantly decreased pain intensity in patients with dysmenorrhoea compared with controls (pooled mean difference, -1.64; 95% confidence interval, -2.27 to -1.00; p < 0.001; CoE, moderate; I2 statistic, 79.43%) and indicated substantial heterogeneity among the included studies. TSA revealed that the current RCTs provide sufficient information. In subgroup analyses, vitamin D supplement reduced primary dysmenorrhoea pain but not secondary dysmenorrhoea pain. In conclusion, although substantial heterogeneity persists, vitamin D supplementation decreased pain intensity in patients with dysmenorrhea, especially in those with primary dysmenorrhoea.
| S-EPMC11013696 | biostudies-literature